People v. Grant
2014 IL App (1st) 100174-B
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Grant arrested June 2009 on Grant residence porch after police found a loaded handgun.
- Four AUUW counts charged: I–carrying uncased, loaded outside home; II–no valid FOID card outside home; III–carrying uncased, loaded on public street; IV–carrying on public street without FOID.
- Bench trial September 23, 2009; four counts found guilty; sentenced December 21, 2009 to 18 months probation plus fines.
- On appeal (January 2010), defendant challenged facial and applied constitutionality of AUUW; argued right to bear arms outside home under Heller and McDonald.
- May 2013: panel affirmed all counts; acknowledged Aguilar would invalidate class-4 form underlying count I; declined to overrule Kalodimos.
- January 29, 2014: Supreme Court supervisory order to reconsider in light of Aguilar; parties filed supplemental briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aguilar invalidates FOID-related AUUW provisions. | Grant argues Aguilar renders all AUUW counts invalid. | Grant contends Aguilar affects all AUUW subsections, not just count I. | Counts II and IV remain valid; FOID provisions severable and constitutional. |
| Whether Aguilar invalidates counts I and III (uncased, loaded outside home). | Grant asserts Aguilar invalidates all outside-home prohibitions. | State argues Aguilar limited to uncased, loaded, outside-home provision; FOID subsections unaffected. | Counts I and III reversed as Aguilar invalidated the cited provisions. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for counts II and IV (FOID-related). | State bore burden; defendant admitted no FOID card; corroboration required. | Defendant argues insufficient corroboration beyond admission. | There was sufficient corroborating evidence; corpus delicti established. |
| Whether the FOID-related offenses violate proportionate penalties clause. | State: distinct elements/penalties justify AUUW vs FOID Card Act. | Penalty disparity for identical elements violates Illinois Constitution. | AUUW counts II and IV do not share identical elements with FOID Card Act; penalties proportionate. |
| Jurisdiction to consider proportionate penalties under supervisory order. | Court retains jurisdiction; nonetheless, the argument lacks merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (invalidated class 4 AUUW provision (a)(1),(a)(3)(A) after Heller/McDonald; limits extended analysis to scope of Aguilar)
- People v. Henderson, 2013 IL App (1st) 113294 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2013) (severability of FOID-card requirement from Aguilar; FOID provision survives)
- People v. Taylor, 2013 IL App (1st) 110166 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2013) (FOID requirement not limited by Aguilar; second amendment regulation upheld)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (right to possess/use firearm for self-defense outside the home)
- In re Angel P., 2014 IL App (1st) 121749 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2014) (one-act, one-count doctrine guiding sentencing)
- People v. Holmes, 241 Ill. 2d 509 (Ill. 2011) (FOID card issued suffices; possession not required at time of arrest)
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483 (1984) (existing Illinois constitutional framework for firearm regulations)